The results are in, mostly

This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long; when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who have never participated in politics a reason to stand up and to do so.

From Barack Obama's January 4 victory speech after the Iowa caucus.

Indeed, the Iowa caucus was the first tangible proof that something big was in the offing. So now that the dust has settled, let's take inventory.

Barack Obama soundly defeated his opponent in a well organized campaign that had nationwide appeal. He ended up winning by six and a half percentage points, which puts him in Clinton territory, but well short of Reagan. He held all the states that John Kerry won 4 years ago and managed to flip 9 other states including Florida and Ohio. In a curious sideshow, Nebraska handed Obama one of its electors -- making a historical first by splitting its electors.

Of course, the electoral college's distortion of democratic practice continues unabated, as Obama rolled up a landslide 35% margin of the electors (see table below). One wonders, if the electoral college is such a great system, why US diplomats do not advocate it abroad during the various episodes of nation-building that they are involved in.

Year	Vote Margin (%)	Elector Margin (%)
2008	6.5	35
2004	2.4	6.5
2000	-0.5	0.9
1996	8.5	41
1992	5.3	38
1988	7.8	59
1984	18	95
1980	9.7	82

Undecided
In the foregoing, I assumed that Missouri ultimately will be decided in favor of McCain. This is the only state that remains in doubt, as McCain is favored only by two tenths of a percentage point in the current tally.

More significantly there are several senate races that are still up in the air. In Minnesota, which seems to have a proclivity for obnoxious candidates, only a few Angstroms separates incumbent Norm Coleman from political satirist Al Franken. Coleman's lead is only 221 votes out of about 2.9 million cast, a difference that is less than a hundredth of a percentage point. If this margin is upheld, an automatic recount will be triggered in which Franken has the advantage due to a strong undercount reported in several predominantly Democratic districts.

Meanwhile, Georgia is serving up an interesting result of its own. In the race between incumbent Saxby Chambliss and challenger Jim Martin, Chambliss has the clear victory. But Georgia law requires a runoff election, and if Chambliss' 49.8% holds, it is headed that way. Chambliss will probably win in the runoff, but there is a lot of variability since the turnout will be very low.

Finally we come to Alaska, where the Senate's longest serving member is poised to win an 8th term. Ted Stevens, in spite of recently being convicted of 7 felony counts of corruption related charges, holds a 1% lead over his challenger. He will probably prevail in the final tally and then be forced out of the senate by his colleagues -- to be replaced by a 2-year interim senator of Governor Palin's choosing.

In my estimation then, of the three undecided senate seats, two of them will go to the Republicans. Thus the senate will be 58-42 (assuming the two independents caucus with the Democrats), which is not filibuster proof.

Colonoscopy ... if you cry laughing it is not my fault

An Appointment for a Colonoscopy

ABOUT THE WRITER: Dave Barry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning humor columnist for the Miami Herald. This is from his colonoscopy journal:

I called my friend Andy Sable, a gastroenterologist, to make an appointment for a colonoscopy. A few days later, in his office, Andy showed me a color diagram of the colon, a lengthy organ that appears to go all over the place, at one point passing briefly through Minneapolis. Then Andy explained the colonoscopy procedure to me in a thorough, reassuring and patient manner. I nodded thoughtfully, but I didn't really hear anything he said, because my brain was shrieking, quote, 'HE'S GOING TO STICK A TUBE 17,000 FEET UP YOUR BEHIND!'

I left Andy's office with some written instructions, and a prescription for a product called 'MoviPrep,' which comes in a box large enough to hold a microwave oven. I will discuss MoviPrep in detail later; for now suffice it to say that we must never allow it to fall into the hands of America's enemies.

I spent the next several days productively sitting around being nervous. Then, on the day before my colonoscopy, I began my preparation. In accordance with my instructions, I didn't eat any solid food that day; all I had was chicken broth, which is basically water, only with fewer flavors. Then, in the evening, I took the MoviPrep. You mix two packets of powder together in a one-liter plastic jug, and then you fill it with lukewarm water. (For those unfamiliar with the metric system, a liter is about 32 gallons.) Then you have to drink the whole jug. This takes about an hour, because MoviPrep tastes - and here I am being kind - like a mixture of goat spit and urinal cleanser, with just a hint of lemon.

The instructions for MoviPrep, clearly written by somebody with a great sense of humor, state that after you drink it, 'a loose, watery bowel movement may result.' This is kind of like saying that after you jump off your roof, you may experience contact with the ground.

MoviPrep is a nuclear laxative. I don't want to be too graphic, here, but: Have you ever seen a space-shuttle launch? This is pretty much the MoviPrep experience, with you as the shuttle. There are times when you wish the commode had a seat belt. You spend several hours pretty much confined to the bathroom, spurting violently. You eliminate everything. And then, when you figure you must be totally empty, you have to drink another liter of MoviPrep, at which point, as far as I can tell, your bowels travel into the future and start eliminating food that you have not even eaten yet.

After an action-packed evening, I finally got to sleep. The next morning my wife drove me to the clinic. I was very nervous. Not only was I worried about the procedure, but I had been experiencing occasional return bouts of MoviPrep spurtage. I was thinking, 'What if I spurt on Andy?' How do you apologize to a friend for something like that? Flowers would not be enough.

At the clinic I had to sign many forms acknowledging that I understood and totally agreed with whatever the heck the forms said. Then they led me to a room full of other colonoscopy people, where I went inside a little curtained space and took off my clothes and put on one of those hospital garments designed by sadist perverts, the kind that, when you put it on, makes you feel even more naked than when you are actually naked.

Then a nurse named Eddie put a little needle in a vein in my left hand. Ordinarily I would have fainted, but Eddie was very good, and I was already lying down. Eddie also told me that some people put vodka in their MoviPrep. At first I was ticked off that I hadn't thought of this is, but then I pondered what would happen if you got yourself too tipsy to make it to the bathroom, so you were staggering around in full Fire Hose Mode. You would have no choice but to burn your house.

When everything was ready, Eddie wheeled me into the procedure room, where Andy was waiting with a nurse and an anesthesiologist. I did not see the 17,000-foot tube, but I knew Andy had it hidden around there somewhere. I was seriously nervous at this point. Andy had me roll over on my left side, and the anesthesiologist began hooking something up to the needle in my hand. There was music playing in the room, and I realized that the song was 'Dancing Queen' by ABBA. I remarked to Andy that, of all the songs that could be playing during this particular procedure, 'Dancing Queen' had to be the least appropriate.

'You want me to turn it up?' said Andy, from somewhere behind me. 'Ha ha,' I said. And then it was time, the moment I had been dreading for more than a decade. If you are squeamish, prepare yourself, because I am going to tell you, in explicit detail, exactly what it was like.

I have no idea. Really. I slept through it. One moment, ABBA was yelling 'Dancing Queen, feel the beat of the tambourine,' and the next moment, I was back in the other room, waking up in a very mellow mood. Andy was looking down at me and asking me how I felt. I felt excellent. I felt even more excellent when Andy told me that it was all over, and that my colon had passed with flying colors. I have never been prouder of an internal organ.

On the subject of Colonoscopies...

Colonoscopies are no joke, but these comments during the exam were humorous..... A physician claimed that the following are actual comments made by his patients (predominately male) while he was performing their colonoscopies:

1. 'Take it easy, Doc. You're boldly going where no man has gone before!'

2. 'Find Amelia Earhart yet?'

3 . 'Can you hear me NOW?'

4. 'Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?'

5. 'You know, in Arkansas, we're now legally married.'

6. 'Any sign of the trapped miners, Chief?'

7. 'You put your left hand in; you take your left hand out...'

8. 'Hey! Now I know how a Muppet feels!'

9. 'If your hand doesn't fit, you must quit!'

10. 'Hey Doc, let me know if you find my dignity.'

11. 'You used to be an executive at Enron, didn't you?'

And the best one of all....

13. 'Could you write a note for my wife saying that my head is not up there?'

Someone Get That Crack Pipe Away From McCain Before He Blows This Election!

I trace it back to the summer, whenever it was that McCain stopped talking to reporters. Giving the media a wealth of material and straight talk helped get the senator his party's nomination; why quit? Then he tapped Governor Palin: charming, of course, but an odd choice to bolster one's own position with the public. Few people outside of Seward's Folly even knew her name. McCain had to sell her, instead of benefitting from the reflected light of a respected and well-known public figure with complementary expertise (see Joe Biden for Vice President, the picking of). And then he went on, like a frenzied chamois leaping from Alpine peak to peak, to fumble the national banking crisis with conflicting statements, and then by "suspending his campaign". He raced to Capitol Hill, which has not resounded with his step in months, where Congress felt it could carry on notwithstanding his absence. He is now rounding out the image of a punchy hothead by the too-frequent use of the phrase "my friends" and a slightly inebriated sense of excitement in his demeanor. Has he lost all shame? Perhaps he should take a little rest time at one of his seven houses to compose himself instead of turning to drugs.

The Bogus Human Factor for Politicians

I was listening to NPR today and the voices were talking about the McCain-Obama debate. The analyst brought up an apparent highlight for McCain, the moment near the end when he engaged with an enlisted Navy person in the audience. This was labeled one of the few "human moments" of the debate. Why are human moments the holy grail of the campaign trail? What the hell is wrong with the people in this country? I mean, besides the evangelical morons who vote for whoever is "pro-life" independent of any other consideration. In fact a useful act would be to sterilize these rubes. Anyhow, why are human moments important? I would like to see less human moments now, and more shrewd and saavy governing moments after election. Isn't this why Gore didn't have a larger popular majority and didn't win the electoral majority? (Besides the fact that stupid Tennessee, his own state, failed him) He was too...wooden or robotic, stiff, wasn't that it? What was he really? Too proficient? Intelligent? Educated? Knowledgeable? Efficient? Effective? Professional? Academic? Objective? Rational? Hello!!! We want someone in the executive office is who NOT a regular average citizen. We want someone who eschews emotion for hard facts and rational cost/benefit decisio-making. We want someone who is good at governing, not fostering a cult of personality via charisma and human moments. I don't know how pointless it is to complain about this. To some degree its a reflection of being human and occurs all around the world. But if there is anywhere there should be a higher standard, shouldn't it be in America?

Sarah Palin Debate Flowchart

You all know I am sort of desensitized about this prolonged campaign. Well, I don't pay too much attention to the mass mailings. This one I liked as Little John would say in Robin Hood :) I loved this one! The Bean Counter.

The New Advertising

Timson's Tonic for Distracted Deadbeats
Has been known to cure

***

We Hate to Seem to Boast,
but
Many Who have Tried It Are Still
Alive
***
Take a Dose or Two in Your Spare Time
It's Not Bad Stuff
***
Read what an outside stockbroker says:
"Sir--After three months' steady absorption of your Tonic I was no worse."
***
We do not wish to thrust ourselves forward in any way. If you prefer other medicines, by all means take them. Only we just thought we'd mention it--casually, as it were--that TIMSON'S is PRETTY GOOD.

--PG Wodehouse

Immigration and national security

Co-authored by Newt Fancier and Pythagoras

A few years ago, immigration reform became a hot topic in Washington. This was motivated mainly by the high level of illegal, or undocumented, immigrants, which is estimated at 11-12 million. One disturbing trend in the debate about immigration policy is the tendency to conflate it with the issue of terrorism and national security. The tactic is problematic.

The Republican and Democratic candidates share many views about immigration. For example, they both voted for the bill to harden the border with Mexico by expanding the border fence and beefing up the border guard. Indeed most senators supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006 which passed 80 to 19. Similarly they both promote a path to legalization that includes learning English and paying fines. Consequently they must fend off charges that this constitutes amnesty. They both supported the DREAM act which eased higher education restrictions and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 which included a guest worker program. On their websites, they both promote employer responsibility, improving ties with Mexico and the notion that immigrants are a benefit to the country.

Perhaps a point of distinction, was Obama's sponsorship of a bill in the Senate called the Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007 which sought to counteract a 66% hike in naturalization fees, which have risen from $95 in 1998 to $595 in 2008. He argues that such barriers to legal immigration promote illegal immigration. Also it is unclear what McCain suggests about employer responsibility, while Obama is more concrete in promoting the need for an easy verification system. Obama emphasizes keeping families together and proposes increasing immigration quotas to support that.

According to Gallup, American support for a decrease in immigration spiked from 38% to 58% after September 11 and has remained high through at least 2005. One of the troubling things about the immigration debate is that most people seem to think, or they say they think, that controlling illegal immigration at the Mexican border is an issue of national security. McCain says it succinctly, "this issue is an important and compelling one, and it begins with national security". Obama is not to be outdone, saying "we are going to have to secure our nation's borders" and talks about our nation's "sovereignty". In Obama's immigration plan he claims that "borders are less secure than ever." A Foreign Affairs survey reports that in 2008, 87% of Americans feel that tighter controls on immigration to the US would strengthen national security and 52% think it would strengthen it a great deal. However, a CNN poll shows that most Americans prefer an increase in the number of border agents to additional fencing. In the war of words, hardliners refer to the wave of illegal immigration as no less than an invasion.

Is all of this national security talk well founded or is it an irrational fear, a phobia? Are there legitimate concerns about illegal immigrants coming here in order to do us harm, either motivated by profit or ideology?

One argument that is often made rather carelessly is that immigration brings crime. Numerous studies have in fact found the opposite - that the foreign born, whether here legally or not, have lower crime rates than the native born, especially when compared within ethnic categories. There is ample evidence to support this assertion. For instance, the crime rates in border towns have been compared with non-border towns. In the 1990s, the US Commission on Immigration Reform concluded there is "no consistent or compelling evidence that immigration causes crime" since border towns generally had a lower rate of crime. Other examples focusing on specific communities such as El Paso and Miami are discussed in the Martinez and Lee report, The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change. In "Open Doors Don't Invite Crime", Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson suggests a causal relation between increased latino immigration in the 1990s and decreased crime. According to Rumbaut and Ewing (The Myth of Immigrant Criminality, 2007), in 2000, the native born population had a 3.5% incarceration rate compared to 0.7% for the foreign born. The incarceration rate of Mexican born was 0.7% as well. This is especially interesting in that the Mexican born population is generally less educated than the native born white population which has an incarceration rate of 1.7%.

The first generation of immigrants is definitively not a threat. It is the second generation that can pose problems if not well integrated and socially accomodated. This was always the case going back to the Irish and Italian mobs.

The charge that illegal immigration poses a terrorist threat is a little harder to take seriously. There has never been even a hint of a terrorist attack which makes use of the US-Mexican border. There are probably good reasons for this. One being that there are more Muslims in the US than in Mexico. Thus a Muslim seeking to visit or immigrate to the US has an easier path to do so directly rather than via an inhospitable proxy.

The candidates, while generally kow towing to the immigration hawks in bland language, occasionally strike a more rational tone. For instance, at a town hall meeting in Iowa a woman asked Obama "what you would do to protect this country from terrorism and are you going to close the borders and get rid of illegal immigrants?" His response was right on the money, "Those are two separate questions."

There is no lack of hyperventilation about the danger posed at our southwestern border of Middle Eastern terrorists infiltrating our country, despite the well documented lack of halal tacos in Mexico. No less than the venerable CATO Institute froths at the mouth in its elegantly worded report "The Weaponization of Immigration". The report uses the term "border" in the malleable sense, meaning any point of entry into the united states - such as the point of entry used by Mohammed Atta the lead 911 terrorist, or the points of entry used by any number of Middle Eastern terrorists (most of whom entered legally) which are spelled out in exquisite detail. Thus it goes without saying that our "borders" need greater security.

Is there really a problem at the Mexican border you say? That depends on your point of view. Is an OTM a problem? - because anywhere from 40 to 180 thousand of them are apprehended crossing the Mexican border every year. The term OTM is the DHS acronym for "Other Than Mexican". The CATO report goes on to say that among these OTMs are ASICs. Apart from being a runners' running shoe, ASICs are "aliens from special interest countries". This is a list of 35 countries who are potential exporters of terrorists, which includes the usual suspects like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Jordan (Egypt where are you?), but also Cuba, Ecuador and Brazil. I am guessing that the ASICs found crossing illegally are mostly from the latter Latino countries. How many ASICs you say? Well CATO does not say, but according to Washington Post columnist Al Kamen it was 297 in 2007. No further information is given on where they are from.

In addition CATO cites two pieces of anecdotal evidence in which 7 Iraqis were found in a Texas border town and 3 Hezbollah agents were found crossing from Mexico. The lack of further malevolent news speaks volumes. Furthermore, Hezbollah seeks to avoid confrontation with the US as it has too much on its plate already with Israel and its rivals in Lebanon to deal with. Meanwhile Iraqis do not pose a threat in the way that Saudis do, if the law of probabilities is any guide.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies has a similar take in his 2004 article "Keeping Terror Out". His starting point is to attack Bush's efforts to create "amnesty" and guest worker programs because they undermine our national security. Again much effort is spent describing the bungling involved with the overstaying of visas for people who entered legally via an airport. Again much is lacking in any persuasive evidence that terrorists are finding the Mexican border a congenial pathway. Indeed, Krikorian unwittingly makes the case that the Canadian border is more dangerous, as he describes two incidents in which terrorists who were involved in actual plots against US targets used the Canadian border. On the other hand, only one incident was cited in the use of the Mexican border, involving the brother of a Hezbollah guerilla fighter.

What is missing is any sense of perspective. What are the statistics on border-borne terrorism? Clearly the CIS and CATO are digging their own graves when they describe the real sources of terrorism. There is probably some sense of urgency in these hardliners who feel that the further we are from 911, their moment of political advantage is diminishing.

Why aren't there more Middle Easterners coming illegally via the Mexican or Canadian borders? Perhaps the problem with that route is that it requires defeating two national security apparatus's rather than just one. This may be compounded by the fact that Mexican culture is not one familiar or congenial to young Middle Eastern men who have become accustomed to Western societies. Nor are they guaranteed the legal rights and protections afforded by US or Canadian laws.

The phobic national security vocabulary needs to be expurgated from the debate on immigration. It is not founded in reality and it does a disservice to those trying to find real solutions to a complex problem. Both candidates need to be clearer in their refusal to go down that path.

Joe Lieberman needs to be beaten with a stick

My attempt to maintain objectivity is a delusional and fleeting ambition as I listen to what is going on at the Republican Convention. Pro-Republican pundits say things in grammatically correct English, in which I happen to be fluent, yet I don't understand what they mean.
- The media are living in an absurdly different world than the rest of "us." This explains the media's quizzical and skeptical reaction to Palin's VP candidacy.
Hmm. Or maybe that monolithic alien entity known as the media is simply exercising its normal mission of questioning the status quo and questioning things that seem odd? (And lets be frank - the selection of Palin is more than a little odd)
- Palin is like someone "we" live next to, an ordinary person type of person. That is a really good thing and thus "we" all like her a lot. She is an "army mom." "We" can identify with her.
Hmmmm. I thought the idea was to have an extra-ordinary person as President. Isn't Biden an "army dad?" Why don't "we" identify with him? Maybe because he doesn't support an abstinence-only policy while his not-yet-adult unmarried daughter is pregnant?
- Palin has made more decisions as governor in Alaska than Biden as senator. Senators don't make decisions, they make speeches.
Hmmmmmm. Isn't McCain a senator?

OK, no more mincing about. I nominate Joe Lieberman for being beaten with a stick until he agrees to quit politics. Do I hear a 2nd? Yes, thank you, please clamor down everyone, we just need one, thank you. Heck, give me the stick. Lieberman's choice quote was that, while Obama voted against continuation of funding for the war in Iraq, "John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion" and vote to continue funding "American soldiers in the field." WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? In democracies, isn't the political leadership supposed to listen to the public? I really thought that was a fairly fundamental theme for a republic.

Additional Lieber-wisdom is that Obama has not reached across party lines during his Senate tenure. Frankly that is why I am committed to voting for Obama now. You know, there is a time for overcoming partisan-ness and getting things done, and there is a time for voters to do their solemn duty to punish the incumbent party for sucking. That is how it works. Otherwise if there were enough ignorant, myopic partyline voters, sucking could beget more sucking in perpetuity. But I digress. I think cynacism begets digressing.

Really, what is all the fuss? So what if Palin becomes President? That might not be the best thing for the country, true, but it could hardly be worse than, say... George W. Bush as President. Oh wait, that actually happened...twice. But would the country be in any more danger with Palin lurking in the #2 spot than it has the past 8 years with Satan-I mean Cheney as VP? If Republican strategists were shrewd, that would be the buzzline. "Hey after 8 years of serious suckitude, Sponge Bob would be a step-up, but why set the bar so low - we give you Palin!" Come to think of it, this reminds me of Iran. Omigosh, what if Iran gets the bomb! Nothing could be worse than that, except say, Pakistan getting the bomb - oh wait we're already living that nightmare.

Lieberman's reason for attending the Rep. Convention? "Because country matters more than party." From my vantage point, Lieberman already showed in Connecticut that he himself matters more than party too. I wonder what cabinet-type position Lieberman is line up for if the Republicans win. Perhaps an ambassadorship somewhere important. And sunny.

But I thought the Olympics were over...

The Democratic Party convention concluded in Denver this past week, just on the heels of the Olympics in Beijing. It occurred to me that one seemed to flow right into the other. The Convention was held in sports stadium, vending booths served hot dogs, and there were pyrotechnics and fan spirit that would make Monday Night Football proud. My confusion from listening to the various speeches came, I believe, from the fact that I was looking for substantive policy information and hints about how and when it might be implemented. But what was being said was more general, really more of a pep rally.

My view of the Convention was mainly through CNN's eyes (HD of course!). A formula became apparent. Pro-democrat pundits would talk about all the "issues" ongoing, such as bitterness of Hillary supporters and who McCain might choose for VP, then the scheduled speakers would do their thing, then back to the same pundits who would analyze each speech and invariabley declare it a winner and a boost for the Democratic cause, then pro-Republican pundits would analyze each speech and invariably declare it not a winner and not a boost for the Democratic cause, and...repeat. I swear it was watching high diving or gymnastics. Commentators gossiped leading up to the event, then the event, then there was scoring and analysis, and...repeat. The Convention should have arranged to ship all the score cards from Beijing and get double-use out of them. "Hillary has to nail the double-axle 2 and a half twist and...she does it!" Hurray!

Now I do think there was a lot of valuable content that did come out, but my mild cynicism I think is due to just not ever paying much attention to conventions. Pageantry and pep is a big part of the show, and a show it is. I was impressed with the governor of Montana's enthusiasm. I was largely unimpressed with Biden, to the point where I don't really remember what he said. Bill Clinton's speech reminded me just how great a communicator he is and how smart he is. Obama made a lot of promises that don't seem reasonable to actually pull off. A little over the top, but classic politic-ing, no? I would have harped on fewer things but harder and in more detail. The pro-Republican critics had a few valid points on this account. Mostly what I liked from Obama was emphasizing that he had been against the war and McCain had been for it, look what happened, and who's really the shrewder foreign policy guy. That and the mano-e-mano challenge over what is supposed to be his weak point; experience.

I guess the important result for me was that there was a strong message that recent Republican approach to governance is largely bankrupt when it comes to good ideas. What is troubling is the lack of specific criticism about how the Bush administration place such a premium on power consolidation, stiffling dissent and debate, secrecy, prioritizing partisan power plays over common good, manipulating the principles of the Constitution, politicizing public offices, and distorting facts. After all, the most far reaching damage from 9/11 is self-securitization and suppression of optimism and freedom of our own country by our own government.

The clash of globalization (with Jeff)

Ürümqi. The most remote city in the world from any sea. Unless you count the sea of brown arid plateau and desert sprawling across western China. I've towed my luggage out of the domestic arrival terminal and across a large parking lot to the international terminal. The latter apparently only opens a couple times per day, on an as-needed basis. Between the travelers loosely crowded about the steps leading to the entrance and the official airport employees, no one looks "Chinese." If I was limited to a guess, I might say I was in the Caucasus. The ethnic diversity in China is rarely emphasized, perhaps not least because the government finds it simplest to suppress this fact.

In any case, most of the travelers turn out to be Uzbeks returning to their home country, on the same direct flight I'm taking to Tashkent. The terminal lobby opens but everything else lags. We all ooze inside waiting to check luggage. As I get my bearings, there is a gradual milling about me of heavily loaded luggage carts. But its not just suitcases. Virtually everyone has their own cart, if not two, piled high with humidfiers, food processors, dishware sets, spiderman comforters, baby bamboo plants 1 meter long, portable air conditioners, tea sets, flat screen TVs, even a Chinese version of monopoly. I spot a tricycle. So much for the 3oz fluid limit. There are huge jugs of, I don't know what. All the bags and boxes are wrapped or reinforced excessively with yellow or blue packing tape. Despite this, two stations for wrapping luggage with plastic or metal ties are receiving plenty of patronage. In fact it has just begun

Until the time the turnstile moves and I head to the aircraft cabin, there is constant ambient sound in the way of the loud ripping sound that packing tape makes when you unwrap a piece from the roll. At least a dozen rolls were constantly shrieking as the spiders around me turned their luggage into virtual cocoons. This must be the worst baggage handling airline in the world. What other explanation for this surrealistic scene could there be? I thought about weight and center of gravity calculations for the aircraft. If the aircraft wasn't full we would be fine, but there was no way any sane aircrew would try to takeoff had all the seats been filled with passengers bringing the collections I saw around me.

It dawned on me that this was the free market and consumerism smacking me in the face. Americans were not the only ones infatuated with cheap manufactured goods from China. These modern and well dressed dark haired Uzbeks were obviously at the high end of prosperity in their society, and they were on a shopping spree. Were the acquisitions ancillary to a tourist visit? Or had most of these people literally flown to China for the sole purpose of bagging loot? Did this happen every day on flights from western China to Tashkent? What of the tape and the packing? Was that practical or more symbolic evidence of some sort of determination and paranoia regarding opportunity in the post Soviet Union era?

I chatted with a friendly young man about Uzbekistan, my trip, and America. He confirmed the basics of the theory I had deduced. Flights were not normally like this, only the ones from China. The power of low-priced consumer goods was real, as if Wal-Mart hadn't proved such already. Thus I watched globalization in the developing world happen before my eyes. Unfortunately, it wasn't very pleasant as the whole mess had a lot to do with me spending over three hours in the baggage pickup and customs before finally making it to my hotel at 4AM. Or maybe what was needed was some globalization regarding transfer of efficient techniques for customs operations from some other country that actually has a clue about organizing lots of people. Like China.

Squeezing In a Little Vacation Time While Crafting a Legacy

Bush has worked so hard during his presidency, it's time he recreated a little. Maybe by visiting with leadership in Seoul on a stop-off, he can write off a jaunt to the Olympics as 'official business'. And he has promised to observe conditions in Beijing carefully. When he can't trust the left-biased media, or his own diplomatic corps, the Decider has to have a look for himself.
It's not as if China has been impressing the global community in the lead-up to its Olympics. First it tried to sweep Tibet's unrest under the rug; the air quality in Beijing is prohibitive to athletics (I think that was the ostensible reason for the gathering?) after China promised to clean it, and the latest is another fine example: China has just revoked the visa, 24 hours before his projected departure, of an American gold-medal speedskater, Joey Cheek, who happens to be the co-founder of a political awareness group called Team Darfur.
But I suppose this is not reason enough for Bush to change his holiday plans. Maybe he doesn't know any better than to add the honor of the personal appearance of the President of the United States to an Olympics already riddled with ethical obstacles.

Tax Joy

Recently I listened to an episode of Fresh Air on which guest Len Berman analyzed the budgetary plans of Obama and McCain. They modeled the effect of each plan, inferring the specifics when necessary and using information on the current demographics of income.

Issue	McCain	Obama
Income Tax	Status quo	More progressive schedule
Bottom 20%	$100 cut	$700 cut
Middle 20%	$1400 cut	$2100 cut
High income	Extend cuts	Return to 2001 levels
Loss of income tax revenue over 10 years	$5 trillion (10% of scheduled revenue)	$3.4 trillion (7%)
Alternative Minimum Tax	Repeal (another $400 million reduced revenue)	Adjust exemption to inflation (presumably)
Capital Gains Tax	Keep rate at 15%	Increase rate to 25% or so
Estate Tax	$5 million exemption, 15% rate	$3.5 million exemption, 45% rate
Corporate tax	Cut current rate of 35%	-
Health care	Detach health insurance from employer	Health insurance exchange

He added the following remarks.

• Income tax: The top percentile earns 16% of the nation's income, the highest level since the eve of the Great Depression.
  
• Capital Gains Tax: Low tax stimulates investment but also gives an incentive to make regular income look like capital gains via "tax shelters".
• Estate Tax: Most progressive tax because it only applies to very wealthy individuals. It is also a backstop to income tax sheltering.
• Corporate tax: Our current rate of 35% is among the highest in developed countries which encourages off-shore tax sheltering.
  

Our President's Next Career

NPR broadcast our President's press conference on Tuesday morning during Morning Edition: oh, joy! Unfortunately, I was driving, so was not able to fully appreciate his 'remarks'. Bush is wasted in the Oval Office! He should be recording bedtime stories for Republicans. Imagine: the repetition, the soothing cadence, the thoughtful pauses, the simplistic concepts, all delivered in that familiar, self-assured, Texan voice. I'd call it 'Bed-time with Bush' and market it on Fox News.

Ruthless green part 3

Now that I have thoroughly trashed the Wired article on global warming, I shall highlight some of its better points. The following two items show that liberals and environmentalists are not the same thing.

3. Organics are not the answer
The organic cow produces less milk and more green house gas. How much? Hmm now 8% and 16%... doing the math that Wired consistently fails to do... okay the per gallon global warming cost of organic milk is ... 25% higher.

Okay, I am not as happy about the second point here, which is to become a vegetarian or at least a non-beef-atarian. How much? The omnivore is 50% more intensive than the herbivore.

The final note in this section is that some food is organically grown and then shipped long distances. Eat local.

8. Embrace nuclear power
The CO2 per kilowatt-hour of Vermont is way lower than any other state. How much? Vermont is 10% of Idaho, the next best state. It is less than 1% of the median state. Holy cow! (non-organic of course)

So what is the secret to Vermont's magic? Well, call me crazy, but the fact that 75% of its electricity is nuclear is something. One study shows that, when factoring in the mining costs etc, nuclear electricity emits 2 to 6% of the CO2 of natural gas. Only wind power comes close, and wind power cannot be produced on the same scale. Congrats are due to Vermont, France, Finland, Japan and South Korea.

Ruthless green part 2

Returning now to the "inconvenient truths" for environmentalists recently published in Wired magazine...

Live in Cities
Or in other words, suburbs are not green, dude:

• Some 3.5 million commuters drive 3 hours a day.
• The rate CO2 emission from a lawnmower is 11 times that of a car.
• Large apartment/condo buildings are more efficiently heated and cooled.
• The per capita carbon footprint of Manhattan, where car ownership is low, is 30% less than the rest of the country.

Hmmm, I live in the city but commute to a suburb. Do I get half credit?

A/C is OK
... compared to heating, that is. The heating of US homes releases 8 times more CO2 annually than cooling them. Why? The main reason is that the difference between 70 degrees and 100 degrees is much less the difference between 70 degrees and 0 degrees. A little leg-work and we have the following evidence to support the idea that 'there is more cold temperature than hot':

• The average continental temperature in the US is 52 degrees.
• In New York City, the average temperature runs from 32 degrees in January to 77 degrees in July.
• In Houston, the average temperature runs from 52 degrees in January to 84 degrees in July.

The article adds that the per annum heating of a home in the Northeast emits 14 times more carbon than the cooling of a home in Phoenix.

This all sounds very reasonable. But the thermodynamicist in you to balk upon reaching the following parenthetical statement in the article:

(that is, it takes less energy to cool a given space by 1 degree than to heat it by the same amount)

Huh!!???!! I believe it can be shown that that is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

While this information is interesting, I don't know how practical it is. After all, we are not often faced with the choice, "hmmm, should I use A/C or heat today". It is not like choosing which CD to play on your stereo system. I will admit that there is some choice in whether you live in a suburb or urban area, but not so much if you consider all of the constraints on families. I suppose then that the most practical use for this information is for public planners.

Wired: ruthlessly green, part 1: Keep your SUV.

Take a look at this incendiary cover from the June 2008 issue of Wired.


I say! What does it all mean? I must admit the ruthlessly anti-CO2 premise appeals to me. These sound like some interesting if incendiary points. Lets scratch beneath the surface:

Keep your SUV. After a silly comparison between a Hummer and a Prius, they admit (without any trace of embarassment) that SUV's are indeed bad for the environment. But their real point is to highlight the under-appreciated environmental cost of manufacturing a Toyota Prius. Making the nickel battery is carbon intensive. When a new Prius (45 mpg) is compared head to head against a 10 year old Toyota Tercel (35 mpg). Excluding the manufacture of the Tercel (after all it is used - grrr), we learn it would take the Prius 100,000 miles to break even. Their recommendation is to buy a used car with reasonable mileage. How inspiring. I wonder where all these used cars are going to come from that we are all about to buy. Can we get Toyota to make some more 1998 Tercels? But wait, then it wouldn't be used, would it?

It is useful to know about the production issue with the Prius battery. While 100,000 is a nice round number, lets turn it into something more relevant. How many miles of Prius driving is the battery equivalent to? Here we go:

Let G be the equivalent gallons of gas and M be the equivalent miles for making the battery. Now we balance the Prius gas (real + equivalent) against the Celica gas:

100,000 miles / 45mpg + G = 100,000 miles / 35mpg

which yields G = 635 equivalent gallons and thus M = 635 * 45 which is a bit less than 30,000 equivalent miles, or about 2 years of driving (or six months in a Hummer).

It is a little disheartening to be sure. But for those Prius owners out there, take heart - the success of the Prius has stimulated investment in a burgeoning green engine industry. So keep your Prius, but don't buy a second one until Toyota comes out with an improvement.

New Endorsement for McCain

The latest in the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain's presidential campaign is yet another endorsement. The approval of Alexa D. DeJoannis is a powerful statement that the Senator's appeal spans a wide American demographic. "John McCain does not represent just Republicans, or the military community, or his age group, or white men," said DeJoannis. "He represents other people as well. Now, with Hilary out of the running, her supporters need to take a look at McCain. They both voted for the war, both take an interest in immigration reform, and - this is a little-known fact - they both like soup."

McCain was "gratified and surprised" to receive the unsought endorsement from the young liberal, many of whose relatives were "shocked and grieved" to hear of it. "I thought we had taught her to never vote for a Republican," stated her mother, Diane M. DeJoannis. "Republicans don't care about the underprivileged." Her sister, Erica "Shmoo" DeJoannis, was reached on the Pacific island of Tuvalu for her comment, where she was performing at a ballroom-dance competition. "She's entitled to her opinion. I just don't think she really understands how bad a president McCain would be. Do we really want to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years? He also doesn't support abortion rights. Did you know that? I mean, do Republicans want to force women who aren't able to raise children to have them anyway just because they consider abortion murder? I think what Bush is doing in Iraq is murder. McCain will just continue Bush's policies." Her brothers could not be reached for comment, though it is believed that one of them is a Ron Paul supporter.

As national politics shifts focus towards November, McCain's campaign will be working to bring more independents into his camp. Though frequently stating his respect for the Democratic nominee, his believes his opponent does not have the experience necessary for the job. McCain will continue to accept endorsements from all sectors of society, and those of liberals are especially welcome.

State of the Stalemate

The smoothing is done with a four point running average. Most of the data is from Gallup.

Polls pols

A Big Stick

When George H. W. Bush first became our president, I winced to hear his voice or see his image. He might have been an animated Disney character invented to portray the soft-hearted idiot side of America. Basically, the association of the man with the title "President", the presidential seal, the Oval Office, or any of our scepters of supreme executive power was embarrassing. But now I've got used to him. The initial horror has faded to a sort of chuckling "what's George been up to now?" attitude as his second,and legally-mandated last, term winds down, overshadowed in the political cosmos by the antics of a fresh flight of presidential hopefuls.
Now, when NPR exerpts a public statement from President Bush, I lean in close and quiet my work to concentrate on his voice, the same way I sink happily into an easy chair to watch the Colbert Report: I know I will be greatly entertained. Today was no different when his warning to Iran after ambivalent naval action in the Strait of Hormuz was broadcast:
"There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple," Bush said. "And my advice to them is: Don't do it." (The actual audio file is even better: just imagine an inarticulate, stuttering pause after "they", and of course, the "don't do it" delivered with slow-paced solemnity.)
Again, our most amusing president has fulfilled my usual expectations of ineloquent, totally obvious 'straight talk'.